Science communication has traditionally been seen as a means of crossing the boundary of science: moving scientific knowledge into the public. This paper presents an alternative understanding. Drawing upon a particular case of social science communication in the form of an interactive installation about the social responsibility of science, it develops the concept of boundary space where phenomena can simultaneously belong to science and nonscience. In addition, the paper describes how the installation functions as a space for interaction between knowledge communication and knowledge production. The paper argues that we should understand science communication as a social practice, which allows scientists and nonscientists to cooperate in performing science as an important part of society. The aim is to add a new kind of analysis to traditional criticisms of deficit-thinking and popularization by asking what can we say more about science communication if we understand it as part of (rather than separated in time and space from) science as a social activity.
BalRoland. 2005. “How to Kill with a Ballpoint: Credibility in Dutch Forensic Science.” Science, Technology, & Human Values30 (1): 52–75.
2.
BauerMartin W.GregoryJane. 2007. “From Journalism to Corporate Communication in Post-war Britain.” In Journalism, Science and Society: Science Communication between News and Public Relations, edited by BauerMartin W.BucchiMassimiano, 33–52. London, UK: Routledge.
3.
BultitudeKarenSardoAna Margarida. 2012. “Leisure and Pleasure: Science Events in Unusual Locations.” International Journal of Science Education34 (18): 2775–95.
4.
CalvertJane. 2006. “What’s Special about Basic Research?” Science, Technology, & Human Values31 (2): 199–220.
5.
DaviesSarah R.2019. “Science Communication Is Not an End in Itself: (Dis)Assembling the Science Festival.” International Journal of Science Education, Part B9 (1): 40–53.
DelgadoAnaKjölbergKamilla LeinWicksonFern. 2011. “Public Engagement Coming of Age: From Theory to Practice in STS Encounters with Nanotechnology.” Public Understanding of Science20 (6): 826–45.
8.
FeltUlrikeFochlerMaximilian. 2010. “Machineries for Making Publics: Inscribing and De-scribing Publics in Public Engagement.” Minerva48 (3): 219–38.
9.
FoucaultMichel. 1969. The Archaeology of Knowledge, Vol. 1992. Bristol, UK: Routledge.
10.
FujimuraJoan. 1992. “Crafting Science: Standardized Packages, Boundary Objects, and ‘Translation.’” In Science as Practice and Culture, edited by PickeringAndrew, 168–211. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
GierynThomas F.1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science—Credibility on the Line. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
12.
GlerupCecilieHorstMaja. 2014. “Mapping ‘Social Responsibility’ in Science.” Journal of Responsible Innovation1 (1): 31–50.
13.
GustonDavid H.1999. “Stabilizing the Boundary between US Politics and Science: The Role of the Office of Technology Transfer as a Boundary Organization.” Social Studies of Science29 (1): 87–111.
14.
HallStuart. 1980. “Encoding/Decoding.” In Culture, Media, Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies1972-1979, edited by Stuart HallD.HobsonA. LoweWillisP., 128–38. London, UK: Unwin.
15.
HalpernMegan K.2012. “Across the Great Divide: Boundaries and Boundary Objects in Art and Science.” Public Understanding of Science21 (8): 922–37.
16.
HilgartnerStephen. 1990. “The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses.” Social Studies of Science20 (3): 519–39.
17.
HilgartnerStephen. 2000. Science on Stage. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
18.
HorstMaja. 2003. “Controversy and Collectivity—Articulations of Social and Natural Order in Mass Mediated Representations of Biotechnology.” PhD Series. Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School, Doctoral School on Knowledge and Management.
HorstMaja. 2011. “Taking Our Own Medicine: On an Experiment in Science Communication.” Science and Engineering Ethics17 (4): 801–15.
21.
HorstMaja. 2013a. “A Field of Expertise, the Organization, or Science Itself? Scientists’ Perception of Representing Research in Public Communication.” Science Communication35 (6): 758–79.
22.
HorstMaja. 2013b. “Learning from Discomfort: Science Communication Experiments between Diffusion, Dialogue and Emergence.” In Knowledge and Power in Collaborative Research: A Reflexive Approach, edited by PhillipsLouiseGunnarssonEwaKristensenMarianneVehvilainenMarja, 21–41. New York: Routledge Advances in Research Methods.
23.
HorstMajaMichaelMike. 2011. “On the Shoulders of Idiots: Re-thinking Science Communication as ‘Event’.” Science as Culture20 (3): 283–306.
24.
IrwinAlan. 2006. “The Politics of Talk: Coming to Terms with ‘New’ Scientific Governance.” Social Studies of Science36 (2): 299–322.
25.
IrwinAlanWynneBrian. 1996. Misunderstanding Science?Cambridge, MA: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.
26.
LatourBruno. 1987. Science in Action. Book, Whole. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
LatourBruno. 2000. “When Things Strike Back: A Possible Contribution of ‘Science Studies’ to the Social Sciences.” British Journal of Sociology51 (1): 107–23.
29.
LeithPeatHawardMarcusReesChrisOgierEmily. 2016. “Success and Evolution of a Boundary Organization.” Science, Technology, & Human Values41 (3): 375–401.
30.
MooreKelly. 1996. “Organizing Integrity: American Science and the Creation of Public Interest Organizations, 1955-1975.” American Journal of Sociology101 (6): 1592–627.
31.
NelkinDorothy. 1995. Selling Science—How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
32.
RobersonTara M.2020. “Can Hype Be a Force for Good? Inviting Unexpected Engagement with Science and Technology Futures.” Public Understanding of Science29 (5): 544–52.
33.
RödderSimone. 2017. “The Climate of Science-art and the Art-science of the Climate: Meeting Points, Boundary Objects and Boundary Work.” Minerva55 (1): 93–116.
34.
RoseNikolasMillerPeter. 1992. “Political Power beyond the State: Problematics of Government.” The British Journal of Sociology43 (2): 173–205.
35.
RüppelJonas. 2019. “‘Now Is a Time for Optimism’: The Politics of Personalized Medicine in Mental Health Research.” Science, Technology, & Human Values44 (4): 581–611.
36.
ShapinSteven. 1990. “Science and the Public.” In Companion to the History of Modern Science, edited by OlbyR. C.CantorG. N.ChristieJ. R. R.HodgeM. J. S., 990–1007. New York: Routledge.
37.
SolomonShana M.HackettEdward J.. 1996. “Setting Boundaries between Science and Law: Lessons from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.” Science, Technology, & Human Values21 (2): 131–56.
38.
StarSusan Leigh. 2010. “This Is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept.” Science, Technology, & Human Values35 (5): 601–17.
39.
StarSusan LeighGriesemerJames R.. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translation’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berekley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.” Social Studies of Science19 (3):387–420.
